[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’ The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Business See other Business Articles Title: Muslim flight attendant: I was suspended for not serving alcohol Source: CBS URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim- ... t-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/ Published: Sep 3, 2015 Author: CBS Staff Post Date: 2015-09-06 09:37:11 by cranky Keywords: None Views: 44512 Comments: 251 A Muslim flight attendant filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming she was suspended from her job for not serving alcohol, which is against her religious beliefs, CBS Detroit station WWJ-AM reports. Lena Masri, an attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Michigan, said Charee Stanley followed management's directions, working out an arrangement with her coworkers to accommodate passenger requests for alcohol. However, Masri said, ExpressJet Airlines put Stanley on administrative leave after another attendant filed "an Islamophobic complaint" that referenced Stanley's head scarf. "We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley's religious beliefs," Masri said at a news conference in Farmington Hills on Tuesday. "Instead, ExpressJet close to violate Ms. Stanely's constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months, after which her employment may be administratively terminated." Masri said the arrangement Stanley had with other attendants to serve alcohol for her had been working out fine since Stanley converted to Islam about a month after becoming a flight attendant for ExpressJet. "I don't think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living," Stanley said. "I shouldn't have to choose between one or the other because they're both important." Contacted by WWJ-AM for comment, airline spokesman Jarek Beem responded with the following statement: "At ExpressJet, we embrace and respect the values of all of our team members. We are an equal opportunity employer with a long history of diversity in our workforce. As Ms. Stanley is an employee, we are not able to comment on her personnel matters." The Islamic-relations council is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization with the mission "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding." Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 170. #7. To: cranky (#0) Serving alcohol is a job requirement. And it is not against the Koran to serve alcohol to infidels. It is against the Koran to drink it. Muslims don't know the actual commandments of their god any better than Christians do. If they did, the world would be a more peaceful place. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-06   12:27:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Vicomte13 (#7) We should not judge this Muslim woman. Just as back in the NT church those who refused to eat meat sacrificed to idols. It's a conscience decision. Some are strong and some are weak. We don't judge. redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   20:55:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: redleghunter (#20) I agree that we should not judge the Muslim woman or Mrs. Davis. Judgment belongs to God. Somebody does have to figure out what to do in such cases, though. My preference is to go straight to the religious texts of Mrs. Davis and the Muslim woman and show them both point blank what their respective gods did and did not say, to reason with them directly on a religious level, using the sacred text of their religion as they believe was revealed by God. When they are shown that God does not command them to do anything like what they are doing they may be abashed and knuckle down to their God's actual law (in which case Davis will issue the certificates and the Muslim woman will serve the drinks). But if they won't, then they can be charged truly with the statement that they are not, in fact, upholding their religion's beliefs or their God's commandments, but simply making themselves a law unto themselves, without Scriptural basis, because they individually and personally don't like something. If they are not engaged directly with their Scriptures, then their view is a sincerely held religious error. But once they've been SHOWN the error, if they go ahead and do their jobs it is well. If they STILL refuse, then they can be criticized as simply being stubborn individuals who are using a religious claim to try to be a law unto themselves. That's really what they ARE doing - being a law unto themselves alone - but right now they do it in ignorance and therefore should be forgiven their trespasses and reasoned with - on the basis of their own religious texts. But once the effort has been made to meet them all the way on their religion: to open up with the pages of the words of their God SHOW them that what they are insisting on doing just is not there, if they persist anyway, they're just trying to impose their own will, and then we needn't feel badly about moving them aside, because there's no reason to allow them to do that. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-06   22:35:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Vicomte13 (#56) When they are shown that God does not command them to do anything like what they are doing they may be abashed and knuckle down to their God's actual law (in which case Davis will issue the certificates and the Muslim woman will serve the drinks). But if they won't, then they can be charged truly with the statement that they are not, in fact, upholding their religion's beliefs or their God's commandments, but simply making themselves a law unto themselves, without Scriptural basis, because they individually and personally don't like something. I don't think Davis should in good Christian conscience sign the marriage certificates. I would have advised her to resign her position and make the statement that government has once again embraced evil and it is no longer a place a Christian can in good conscience serve. No way would I advise her to sign the false pieces of paper. As I would not advise a 1st century Christian to work at the Roman Colosseum. It's that bad now. The Muslims situation is akin to Southern Baptists. It's a conscience issue. I know why they frown upon alcohol and activities promoting alcohol. I also know the Scriptures don't forbid drinking or handling alcohol. Yet I will not poke Baptists in the eye about it based on 1 Corinthians 8. Their is much to be said about dry weddings in the South. Not one of the ones I went to ended in a DUI, fight or someone crying uncontrollably. Yet I was raised Irish and Catholic and witnessed all of the above:) redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   22:56:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: redleghunter (#67) I suppose that a general rule of conscientious objection based on religious principles is not a bad way to go. The key will be to be sure to apply that where it counts: on things like the draft, or release from military service once one has had a crisis of conscience. But ultimately there will have to an imposition of God's Law, if the human law is made optional, because God's law does not require men to punish other men for, say, fornication, but it DOES require men to punish men for murder. A general religious exemption for conscience would result in a very free society, with few legal norms. But Christian norms would still have to be imposed when it came to killing. And people would have to tolerate a lot of very grim sexual business, as polygamy, child marriage, temporary wives, arranged marriages, marital sex rights (no such thing as marital rape) are all religious norms in some major religions. You sort of have a choice: make a Christian nation, or live as a Christian among the pagans. If you make a Christian nation, the laws of the nation have to adhere to God's laws. You cannot pick and choose - to have God's Law where you want it (sex law, for example), but then disregard God's law and do what you want in other areas (economic law, for example, and warfare) because that's not a Christian nation at all. It's just another form of pagan nation. In fact we live as a pagan nation, and we live as Christians among pagans. This imposes an immense number of burdens on us, because our faith is very much at odds with the world in which we live. We face a dilemma, and it's a dilemma that is within the Law itself, that the Law and Scripture don't clearly answer. On the one hand, God very clearly authorized deceit as a tactic in warfare. Deceit in warfare was legitimate for God's people when fighting the heathen. They did not have to be open and truthful to their enemy when at war. They could trick him. On the other hand, Jesus said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", establishing a high demand of truth. But on the other hand still, Jesus said that with regards to swearing oaths - and it is not at all clear under the Law of God that legitimate warfare deceit went so far as swearing false oaths to heathen enemies to trick them into a disadvantage. There is no example of that in either testament. What, then, is the right answer? Well, we each have to work that out for ourselves. The Law says to honor your oaths, that God will hold you to them. But the law also provides a right of atonement and release from rash oaths that men tend to swear. And Jesus clarified: be truthful and don't swear oaths. But clearly if you're in a just war (most are not), you can deceive your enemy in battle. However, I don't think that goes so far as permitting you to swear false oaths before an enemy. Which means, bottom line, that there are some jobs in this pagan world that Christians cannot take, because they are required to swear oaths to do things that Christians cannot do. CIA assassin, for example: this is not a role that a Christian can take...unless he really thinks that service to some national idol is worth eternal damnation. It looks as though the pagans in America have found a way to scrape off county clerk as a job that can be held by Christians, because there's an oath, and then a requirement to issue things that some Christians find shock their conscience. The REAL answer to all of this is for Christians to obey the ECONOMIC aspects of God's Law with regards to EACH OTHER. If we really did that, Christians would rapidly rise to be richer than Jews, and would be "the club" to join...but which would have a membership requirement that simply will turn back the worst pagans at the door. Just consider if every Christian in earshot here followed the law. If we met in a conclave, discovered our assets and liabilities, used the assets to buy the freedom from debt slavery for the weaker members, and then used the cooperation to turn the fruits from ongoing labor into a system of interest-free lending and preferential cooperation to one another. We all would find ourselves without mortgages or debts within a very few years, and then we would find ourselves with a lot of excess fruit, which could fund more Christian liberty, and enterprise. Just restoring that one simple rule among Christians - of no-interest debt - coupled with Christian sobriety. Think what even two Christian neighbors could do for one another. And then multiply that out. The Christians would not "drop off the grid", but remain very much active in the society, living and working. THEY would just be able to do it with interest-free debt, and they would favor each other in forming alliances and contracts and businesses, because of the fundamental trust and the complete lack of lawsuits. It's what the early Christians did, and it gave them such an advantage over time in a pagan society that they ended up taking it over and changing it. Unfortunately, we latter-day Christians have compromised with paganism such that we've incorporated pagan economics and concepts of recourse to civil law into the very heart of our own families. Which economically puts us down with the rest of the pagan cattle. Our ancestors sold our birthright for a mess of pottage (in the form of royal banners, conquests, slaves and easy divorce). Now we're economically no different from the pagans, and therefore not able to enjoy the communal security that early Christians had. But we can change that at any time, but simply deciding to follow the law, and agreeing with each other to do that. There are many Christian churches and groups that are close enough to do it, they just need to actually DO it. If they were to start, and did so in a disciplined, loving and faithful manner, they would find that God rewards them quickly. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   7:46:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #163. To: Vicomte13 (#83) I suppose that a general rule of conscientious objection based on religious principles is not a bad way to go. The key will be to be sure to apply that where it counts: on things like the draft, or release from military service once one has had a crisis of conscience. Good point. While in the Army I never saw someone forced into combat situations when claiming conscientious objection. Once someone claims CO, an investigation is started to determine if the claim is of merit. For example, someone who knowingly signed up for the Infantry was fully aware of what the Infantry will do in combat. The majority of CO cases turn into an MOS reclassification or chapter discharge from the service. There are some young soldiers who struggle with this. The Army solution is to look at CO on a case by case basis and see what can be done for the best of the unit, soldier and the force. So good example Vic. redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-07   12:56:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #170. To: redleghunter (#163) But that's the thing. If I knowingly sign up for the Army, and take the benefits, knowing full well what the Army does in combat, but THEN God touches me, perhaps once I've SEEN combat, and I realize that what I am doing is evil and that I am serving Satan - THAT is the very situation where conscientious objection matters the most. The individual has already gotten the benefits, and sees and knows what it is, and he has changed his mind. He believes that it is wrong to do what he has been doing, what he was trained and paid to do, and what he used to support. MAYBE he is gaming the system. MAYBE he is telling the truth. Let's suppose he IS telling the truth (let's say the person is you, so you KNOW you're telling the truth). You're not dealing with men of faith who understand your objection. You're dealing with men for whom your "defection" is a giant pain in the ass. Indeed, your departure increases the danger to them, because now somebody who is less skilled has to come in. And why should YOU be able to save YOUR ass from getting killed, and go home and get to use that education, while THEY have to stay far from home and maybe die? That's the mentality of everybody doing the judging, which is why conscientious objectors historically had a very bad time. During World War II. Oh, so you're an objector, eh? Well then, we're going to put you right in the FRONT LINE of the MOST DANGEROUS stuff of all, a field medic. Nobody can object to that on moral grounds. So now you're MORE LIKELY to get killed than if you just took your chances. We're going to make you conscientious objectors BLEED more than regular people, to PROVE your objection by having a greater chance of getting killed than the soldiers. (THAT'll teach ya!) It does indeed teach SOMETHING. There's a lot of bad faith in the judgment process of conscientious objection. The default position is that the objector is a weasel trying to get out of something. So, how does he prove his status? Historically this has been tough. For example, Catholics cannot be conscientious objectors, because the Catholic Church does not as a doctrinal matter recognize the status, saying that there's a duty to serve lawful orders. Tough luck if you're a Catholic. Effectively, you have to have joined a pacifist religion. Now, perhaps things are at times relaxed, but often not. Truth is, the solution is very simple: permit resignation for reasons of conscience. If there is still an obligation period, require a pro-rata payback of whatever benefits were obtained. But such an approach is not morally satisfying to those in dominance, and it is very important psychologically for them to put any alleged conscientious objector through hell. The easier way to avoid combat in past times was to smoke a joint or suck a dick. Those things, which military pagans consider dirty or dangerous, will get you booted. But want to leave for RELIGIOUS reasons. Professional killers are not fans of excessive religious sentiment. You know what I mean. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   13:26:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 170. #212. To: Vicomte13 (#170) The three conscientious objector cases I was familiar with involved soldiers who converted to Islam. They would not fight against other Muslims. Two were chartered with a general discharge. One decided he was no longer Muslim when handed orders for Korea. On a separate note...the majority Christian denomination in Army Special Forces is Catholic. You gung ho Catholics:) redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-07 18:02:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 170. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com